5 ms·
Here's a larger study (230k vs 4k people), based on medical records rather than the "covid study symptoms app" that shows 10x higher prevalence https://www.med
by rcpt 6y ago
Here's a larger study (230k vs 4k people), based on medical records rather than the "covid study symptoms app" that shows 10x higher prevalence
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249950v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249950v...
- leereeves 6y agoThat figure includes patients with a pre-COVID history of mood/anxiety/psychotic disorders, substance misuse, and insomnia which recurred after COVID, and such patients appear to account for the majority of that figure. And the authors do not claim that any of the sequelae were caused by COVID.
- rcpt 6y agoNot sure how you got that recurring pre-existing conditions is the major component of the figures in the paper. > the authors do not claim that any of the sequelae were caused by COVID Because a strong causality claim like you're asking for is impossible without perfect randomized controls which would be unethical.
- leereeves 6y agoFrom the abstract: > The estimated incidence of neurological or psychiatric sequelae at 6 months was 33.6%, with 12.8% receiving their first such diagnosis [thus 20.8% pre-existing] From table 1: 33.6% of patients had any sequelae 24% had psychiatric disorders (only 8.6% for the first time) 6.6% had substance misuse (only 1.9% for the first time) 5.4% had insomnia (only 2.5% for the first time). No other condition was over 3%. (Numbers add up to more than 33.6% (12.8%) because some patients had multiple conditions.) So it looks like almost 2/3rds of the figure was preexisting conditions. > Because a strong causality claim like you're asking for is impossible without perfect randomized controls which would be unethical. I'm not asking for a strong causality claim, merely some effort to restrict the numbers to conditions that might plausibly have been caused by COVID.
- rcpt 6y agoEven with your focus on only new diagnoses it's still 6X higher than the figure you claim. Intuitively it would be odd if the people with pre-existing conditions were left untouched instead of making their conditions worse. > I'm not asking for a strong causality claim, merely some effort to restrict the numbers to conditions that might plausibly have been caused by COVID. They propensity score match against people who had the flu during lockdown
- leereeves 6y agoI'm not the poster who claimed the lower figure. > They propensity score match against people who had the flu during lockdown Any kind of stress can aggravate psychiatric disorders, substance misuse, and insomnia, and having COVID is surely more stressful than having the flu. That's not the same thing as COVID causing the illness.